W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-comments@w3.org > October 2011

Re: HTML 5 ...

From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 17:45:43 +0300
Message-ID: <4EA2D717.9030004@kolumbus.fi>
To: public-html-comments@w3.org
22.10.2011 17:27, Jordan Clark wrote:

> 1. The W3C make *recommendations* – they do not “control” what
 > the methods the browser companies can or cannot use to render pages.
 > So, if for example, the W3C say that “the FONT element is *not* be used”
 > (or “deprecated” in W3C-speak), whether developers and browser-vendors
 > listen is another thing.

Indeed, but there’s more. The HTML5 drafts say that authors must not use
the FONT element, but that just means that a document using it is
non-conforming. This may matter to use if your client or boss has 
required conformance to the HTML5 specification (I’m postulating that 
there will be such a spec). But without such external requirements, 
nobody can force authors not to use the FONT element. Well, if browsers 
stopped supporting it, that would be different, but it won’t happen.

And the W3C isn’t even trying to make browser vendors drop FONT support, 
for example. Quite the contrary. The HTML5 drafts require that the FONT 
element be supported by browsers. They also define its meaning, even 
more accurately than previous specifications—in particular, it specifies 
the mapping of FONT SIZE values in HTML to font-size property values in CSS.

In addition to requiring continued to support to features declared
deprecated in HTML 4,01 (and usually non-conforming in HTML5 drafts),
the HTML5 drafts even require browser support to features that were
never part of any HTML specification but have been widely implemented
and deployed, such as <embed>.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 22 October 2011 14:46:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 22 October 2011 14:46:07 GMT